BS 



> ) 



• . > j: 

> 3 



>_> A 






■» 


^ 


>3;> 


> 


»OD 


> 


■" » 


^» 


» 


^ 


:» 


> 


» 


> 


:» 


> 


_» > 




|B) /^^Ki 




^L > 


■^ 


> > 


>> 


>fc N 


1 >S 




UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.! 






> } 
^ J> 3> 





r ? a 






■_-T 
> 




> 




3 

*- 

> 




> 




1 3 

-■> 
> 

> 

> 


> 
> 

* > 
> v 


> 

> b 

> > 


> 
) 
) 
> 
> 








> 
> 




>> 

> > 




V >^> ^ \ 


> 
> 




)> 


) 


> >> >3> > 


> 




v 5> 


3 





'^-'^ J> 3 ;>_^ .» >J> J> ^ 



3 :>z>J»x> ^>3 

> >^ »x> » > >_3 

>> > p > > > ^ -^* 

^»o > > > > > : 

>> > > • } ) > > ^-> 3 

» > >^ ) > > > > > ^ 

, >^ ■» o > > > >> > 

->> » > > >> >> > 

~yy •> ) ^ y >o> j> 






P JJH* 


' s 




y> > 


7 




»:> 


r> 




> > 








> 




> • » 






> > *>:> 




- 


5 ) .*> r> 


) 


^ 




> 


5 


> > ^> 




^ 


V r D > 


;> 


> 


> > 


> 


> 


> ^ 






>J> 




s 


J> 


> ^y 




-> 




.._> 



. > :> > 


J 




J 
1 


\ 9 J 2 * 
> > ) > 


^ 
1 


> >} ) 


1 


5 > > > 


'J 


, > > ^ > 


J 


> > > 


3 


1^>| 


< 






/;> x > > 




55 >^£ 




?j> > v 




-y y ) > 


> 


;> ) > > 


> 


> >o ■> 


> 


> :> > > 


> 


> 5 > > 


> 


< -> > > 


) 



> , >> J£> ) 

>> o 3fe ) 

>) ))" » > 

>t>:> » >> 

>i> > >. > 

$> J> ) 

CO >j> J 

» 



> 


> » 


► 


^> >.>_* 


> 


>^> :>> 


► 


> x>^> 


> 


> » > 


>^ 


> x> :> 




> > ^>^) 




> > :0 




> ) >J3 




> > >>> 


J 

"^1 





>> » 



> > i 

> > > 

> > >> 

> > > > 



CHRONOLOGY, 



ANCIENT AND SCRIPTURAL; 



BEING A REPLY TO AN 

ARTICLE CONTAINED IN THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN 

REVIEW, REVIEWING NOTT'S LECTURES ON THE 

CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BIBLICAL AND 

PHYSICAL HISTORY OF MAN. 



[from the southern quarterly review for November 1850.] 



By J. C. NOTT, M. D., 



Of Mobile, Ala. 




s CHARLESTON, S. C. 
STEAM-POWER PRESS OF WALKER AND JAMES. 
1850. 



ANCIENT AND SCRIPTURE CHRONOLOGY. 

1. Chine — ou description historique, geographique et 
litteraires, de ce vaste Empire, (Tapr^s des documens 
Chinois, comprenant au resume de Thistoire et de la 
civilization Chinoises depuis les temps le plus anciens 
jusqu'a nos jours. Par M. G. Pauthier, membre 
de plusieurs societes savantes. Paris. 1839. 

2. Chronologie der JEgypter. R. Lepsius. Berlin. 
1849. 

3. Inde. Par M. Dubois de Jancigny, Aide-de-Camp 
du Roi D'Oude, et par M. Xavier Raymond, At- 
tache a TEmbassade de Chine. Paris. 1845. 

4. Ancient Monuments of tlie Mississippi Valley. By 
E. G. Sqjjier and E. H. Davis. 

5. The Souther?! Presbyterian Review, conducted by an 
Association of Ministers, in Columbia, S. C. Vol. 
hi., No. 3. 

The first two of the above works are amongst the 
most remarkable productions of our age. They are from 
authors who kave no equals in their respective depart- 
ments of literature ; and their writings have added so 
largely to our stock of knowledge, that it would hardly 
be exaggeration to say that their names will mark an 
epoch in human progress. It would be vain here to at- 
tempt an analysis of such works. A simple enumeration 
of all the writings oi Pauthier and Lepsius would serve 
to give an idea of their herculean labours ; but we have 
not space even for this. The reader who has any taste 
for Eastern lore, cannot fail to find in their works a rich 
and ample entertainment.* The work on India, too, 

* Works on Egypt are pouring in upon us, and the names, at least, are known 
to many ; but, few readers in this country know any thing about China, and we 
give a list of such other works of Pauthier as we have seen. 

1. Sinico-iEgyptiaca — Essai sur l'origine et la formation similaire des Ecri- 
tures figuratures Cbinoise et Egyptienne, compose- principalement d'apres les 
ecrivains indigenes etc. Paris. 1842. 

2. Esquisse dune Ilistoire de la Pbilosophie Cbinoise. 1844. 

3. Les Livrea Snores de l'Orient, (comprising the religious works of China, 
India, the Koran, etc.) Paris. 1842. 

4. De rOrigineet de la Formation des diffe'rena Systemes d'EcrituresOrien- 
tales et Occidentales. Paris. 1838. 

1 



4 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

will be found to be one of great ability — " posted up to 
date " — and full of rich and rare information. 

The fourth, on the " Ancient Mounds," is the produc- 
tion of our own country, has attracted much attention in 
Europe, and is one of which we may well be proud. It 
supplies a link in the " world's history," which has long 
been a desideratum. 

The last title in our caption, viz, the " Southern Presby- 
terian Review," differs very widely in its objects from the 
foregoing works. It shows no morbid anxiety to receive or 
propagate new truths ; but is, -on the other hand, eminently 
conservative. We are told, in its "prospectus" that it "is 
devoted mainly to the exposition of the doctrines and poli- 
ty of the Presbyterian Church ;" and, judging by the only 
article in it we have read,* it must be admitted that it 
marches with a bold and steady stride towards its goal, 
regardless of all impediments, and never, for a moment, 
forgetting the grateful counsel of Pope : 

" Words are man's province — words we teach alone. 

"When reason, doubtful, like the Saraian letter, 

Points him two ways, the narrower is the better. 

Placed at the door of learning, youth to guide, . 

We never surfer it to stand too wide. 

To ask, to guess, to know, as they commence, 

As fancy opens the quick springs of sense, • 

We ply the memory, we load the brain, 

Bind rebel wit, and double chain on chain, 

Confine the thought, to exercise the breath, 

And keep them in the pale of words, till death." 

Although, in the article alluded to, we are denounced 
as " an assailant of religion," as uttering opinions " dan- 
gerous to religion, morality and law," ranked with those 
* infidel writers who have sought to sap the foundation of 
religion," with many other things, equally charitable and 
kind, still, we should not, for a moment, have thought of 
intruding our private griefs on the reader, or of noticing 
this attack in any way, had not Dr. Howe, in his earnest 
solicitude to defend his " doctrines," sought to strangle 
truths which are now struggling into existence — truths, 
too, which are regarded by many leading minds of the 
day, as calculated to exert an immense influence on the 
temporal welfare of the various races of men ; and, did 

* A Review in No. 3, Jan. 1850, by the Rev. Dr. Howe, of " Two Lectures, 
on the Connection between the Biblical and Physical History of Man, d'c. By 
J. C. Nott, M.D., of Mobile, Alabama. 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 5 

not the reverend Doctor occupy a station which entitles 
him to respect, and which gives him a certain influence 
over the minds of many, who are not in the habit of in- 
vestigating subjects so vast as the physical history of man. 

The study oi' man, physical and moral, belongs legiti- 
mately to the medical profession, and we have been at- 
tracted especially to it, by its intrinsic interest and im- 
portance, and not by any love of those theological dis- 
cussions, to which it seems inevitably to lead. When we 
first commenced writing on this subject, we used our best 
endeavours to avoid such collisions ; but the u doctrines " 
of others, and particularly of those who looked to the 
Bible alone for science, met us at every step, and we 
were convinced that our forbearance was in vain. We, 
saw no other course but to speak out, fearlessly and 
boldly, according to the teachings of modern discovery, 
regardless of the opposition which we had been taught 
to expect. 

Notwithstanding the extraordinary assertions to the 
contrary, of Dr. Howe, and of his amiable collaborateur, 
the Rev. Dr. Bachman, the discoveries made in Egypt, 
during the last twenty years, nay, during the last five, 
have put an entirely new face on the question of the unity 
of the races. We do not care to waste time in disputes 
about diversity of species, (a question of minor importance, 
and which may never be settled) ;* but we assert that, in 
the year 1850, no Egyptologist, of first rate standing, will 
deny that the white, black, and other races, as distinct as 
now, existed at an epoch too remote to be reconciled with 
any chronology yet drawn from either the Hebrew, Sa- 
maritan or Septuagint texts of Genesis. It may require 
yet a few years to conduct ethnography safely through 
the struggle against " doctrines and polity, 1 '' which astro- 
nomy and geology have passed through ; but the dawn is 
at hand. The chronology of Archbishop Usher, which 
Doctors of Divinity have so long been " bound to defend," 
has been battered down by the strong arm of truth ; and 
the equally untenable Septuagint chronology is now aban- 
doned by Prichard, Bunsen, Lepsius, Birch, Barucchi and 
others, whose authority it is presumption in the uninformed 
to question. 

* For a masterly paper on the plurality of origins for the human races, 
see article of Prof. Agassiz, in March number of Christian Examiner. Bos- 
ton. 1850. 



6 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

It is but justice to ourselves to say, that, in the outset, 
we had paid little attention to biblical criticism, and that 
we turned our attention seriously to it, not with the view, 
as Dr. Howe charges, of " assailing religion, morality and 
law ;" but, on the contrary, of reconciling, if possible, 
very embarrassing difficulties. We have failed, it seems, 
to satisfy others, and we must await patiently " the full- 
ness of knowledge, " which is soon and sure to come from 
wiser heads, now at work. 

In searching diligently and honestly for the best lights 
to relieve our mind from biblical difficulties, we were as- 
tonished to find, as remarked by the distinguished Prof. 
Stuart, of Andover, that no "critical commentaries on the 
Scriptures, of the higher kind," exist " in the English lan- 
guage.'' The Professor, whose ability and orthodoxy 
must be admitted by all, makes honourable mention of 
our popular commentators, Henry, Guise, Orton, Dod- 
dridge, Clark, Scott, etc; "but the professed interpre- 
ters," he adds, " of the word, need other aid, and that 
very different from what these works afford, in order to 
attain a fundamentally critical knowledge of the original 
Scriptures." We felt justified, therefore, in appealing to 
the German commentators, who are considered as at foun- 
tain head in philological and historical research ; and in our 
assertion, that it was " men of this stamp, alone, who pos- 
sessed the knowledge requisite for deciding " the several 
questions at issue. 

Far be it from us to assert that the talent, learning, and 
honesty are on one side. On the ccfatraiy, we know that 
the German commentators are much divided. Some con- 
tend that most of the books of the old Testament have 
been mutilated and interpolated, and are wanting in his- 
torical accuracy. Others, again, confine their objections 
to the Pentateuch, rejecting a part, or the whole, etc We 
do not pretend to have read all the German commentators ; 
but, as far as we have gone, we certainly have not met 
with one who would subscribe to the doctrine of our 
Presbyterian reviewer, that the " Bible must stand or fall 
as a wliole," though we do not deny that such persons may 
exist. Even Neander, who has written an elaborate and 
learned Life of Christ, with the avowed object of refuting 
Strauss, makes admissions, with regard to the New Testa- 
ment, which would be rank " infidelity " in the eyes of 
our more divinely favoured reviewer. 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 7 

It is a very convenient, and, perhaps, admissible mode 
of argumentation, to charge such small antagonists as 
ourselves with infidelity, dullness and ignorance; but still, 
even we cannot but regard it as a little presumptuous, in 
one unknown to fame, either as a Greek or Hebrew scho- 
lar, to blot from the list of authorities, by a simple coup de 
plume, a large proportion of the brightest luminaries of 
Europe — those, too, men, not only renowned for high ta- 
lent and learning, but theologians, whose lives have been 
adorned by all the Christian virtues, and who have held 
the highest posts of honour to which they could aspire, or 
enlightened Germany could accord I 

" We are willing to admit," says Dr. Howe, " the genius and elo- 
quence of Eichhorn, the Hebrew learning of Gesenius, the linguistic 
ability of Ewald, the poetic taste of De Wette, and the useful in- 
dustry, especially of the younger Rosenmueller ; but, as authorities 
in matters of doctrine, and especially as to the inspiration of the 
Scriptures, any one, who knows them, at once perceives that they 
cannot be relied upon for a moment." 

Professor Stuart rather taunts this " haut ton " of Ger- 
man criticism, as he calls them, with differing widely 
among themselves, as to the degree of historical accuracy 
of the Old Testament ; but, surely, we should not be sur- 
prised at the fact, when we recollect the chronological, 
historical, and other difficulties, which are admitted ; and 
when we recollect that, according to his own statement, 
the degree of learning necessary for the solution of these 
t difficulties does not exist among English and American 
theologians. And, we might add to all this, that the 
German commentators differ no more in their opinions 
touching Genesis, than do our American and English 
divines, in their explanations of the four Gospels. No 
one sect can demand, or is entitled to, more respect than 
the other ; and if we should ask for the creeds of Catho- 
lics, Presbyterians, Unitarians, etc, we should find them 
to differ as widely as Eichhorn, DeWette and Strauss. 

As for ourselves, we are not ashamed to confess that 
we have few really fixed opinions on many of the intricate 
questions discussed by theologians. We have read com- 
mentators of repute in all the schools, and cannot see that 
their never-ceasing disputes have done much towards clear- 
ing up the clouds which hang over Biblical history ; nor 
can we understand how any well-informed man can have 
positive opinions on points, respecting which the highest 



8 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

authorities have been differing for centuries. There seems 
to be no proof attainable — and doubts must therefore re- 
main. That the Bible (though full of imperfections, like 
every thing which passes through human hands,) was a 
great boon to man, we firmly believe ; and that it has been 
a great promoter of civilization and happiness, in this 
world, and is preparing us, under God's providence, for 
the mysterious future, we believe ; but when it comes to 
matters of "doctrine" we honestly confess that we are 
at sea, without a compass. Such a character as that of 
Christ cannot be of human creation ; and, though divines 
may write thousands of volumes on the "harmony " of 
the four Gospels, we care little about their verbal accura- 
cy. There is a harmony in the character of Christ, and in 
the spirit of his teachings, which can never be explained 
away. 

Although we have never endorsed the doctrines of 
Strauss, and have merely quoted him once or twice, in 
matters of criticism, we beg leave to do him a simple act 
of justice, en passant. " As to Strauss, 1 ' says Dr. Howe, 
" who left his country, perforce, for his country's good, 
his system utterly subverts all revealed religion.' 1 Whe- 
ther his system be right or wrong, Strauss certainly had far 
more ability for judging than his reviewer ; and there is a 
calm, philosophical dignity in his writings, a profound and 
acknowledged (in Germany) scholarship, and an amiable 
and Christian-like toleration, which might well teach useful 
lessons to some who do not love their neighbours as them- 
selves, or do by them as they themselves would be done by. 

As to the statement of Strauss's "leaving his country, 
per force, for his country's good, 11 w r e are not informed 
where the reviewer obtained such information, and hope 
he will pardon us for doubting its truthfulness. We have 
before us a letter of Strauss, and a noble one it is, to 
" Burgomaster Hirzel, Professor Orelli, and Professor 
Hitzig, at Zurich," prefaced by " an Address to the People 
of Zurich, by Professor Orelli." In the translator's pre- 
face, we have the following statement : 

" It will be remembered that Dr. Strauss, the celebrated author 
of u the Life of Jesus" when elected, in 1839, by the proper au- 
thorities, to the then vacant chair of a Professor of Theology, at the 
University of Zurich, in Switzerland, and ready to leave his abode 
in Germany, for his new place of destination, was prevented from 
doing soon account of an insurrection of the people of Zurich, and 
of the surrounding country. Instigated and headed by their clergy, 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 9 

they took up arms,'' (for the love of Christ ?) " and declared their 
determination to prevent his coming, calling him ' a heretic and an 
unbeliever,' " etc. 

The reviewer need not be reminded, that even Christ 
and the apostles, notwithstanding their much higher claims 
to toleration, met with even worse treatment than poor 
Strauss, at the hands of the existing clergy. 

But our ruthless reviewer, not satisfied with singling 
out a few German theologians, who have especially of- 
fended against the "religion he is bound to defend," and 
who have placed themselves "in antagonism to the truth 
of God, 1 ' winds up by making a wholesale business of it, 
and sending the entire fraternity to the devil, en masse. 

" So loose," says he, " have been the German notions, for many 
years, the most decent of the English deists, had they resided in 
that country, might have been installed as Professors of Theology, 
without producing any great commotion." 

Poor Strauss must have been something much worse 
than an infidel, though nothing has been hinted against 
the purity of his character. 

Our reviewer not only complains of our quoting too 
much from Germans^ of latitudinarian stamp, "but that, 
of the long roll of New-England theologians, only Chan- 
ning, Norton, Palfrey, Parker, etc, could attract his (our) 
notice." Now, this charge is not strictly correct, for we 
did quote, several times, and with great respect, Prof. 
Stuart, the great oracle of his sect ; though mainly to prove 
that " Critical commentaries of the higher kind 11 do not 
exist " in New-England. 11 But far be it from our wish to 
do injustice to any class of theologians. We merely quo- 
ted these authorities, et id omne genus, to show that opin- 
ions were as much divided in this country as in Europe, as 
to the historical accuracy of the Pentateuch, etc 

Our avowed object, from the start, in our "Two Lec- 
tures, 11 was to " cut the natural history of man loose from 
the Bible ;" and we, therefore, marched the different 
schools up before the reader ; feeling that we might safely 
leave them together, to settle their disputes, and then take 
our own road quietly, in search of scientific truth.* 

*Our reviewer's pious toleration cannot be confined to the small limits of 
Germany. Speaking of Dr. Charming, Norton, Palfrey, Parker, etc.. he says, 
" But these were men to whose authority, as imbiasscd scholars, or divines, we 
do not defer. We believe their inlluence to be subversive, not only of the 
true teachings of the Bible, but of the Bible itself, as an inspired and au- 
thoritative revelation from God." 



10 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

We can find nothing in the Pentateuch which would induce 
us to believe that its author knew or cared anything about 
the Unity or Diversity of races, and should be most happy 
here to drop all farther allusion to the Bible, but that the 
nature of the subject forbids it. — In the language of the 
Chevalier Bunsen : 

" Christianity engrafted on the limited inquiries of the later Greeks 
and Romans into the origin of nations, the grand ideas of a crea- 
tion and of the unity of the human race ; and thus held out to 
chronological research, as the guide in the new path of science, a 
novel and unlooked for object. It required that a connection should 
be established between the primitive traditions of the Bible and the 
historical traditions of the Gentiles, about the past ages of the world ; 
and, at the same time, challenged research in order to defend the 
historical truth of Scripture. From that moment Egyptian research 
became linked with Jewish, and through it with the whole history 
of the world." " The assumption that it entered into the scheme 
of Divine Providence, either to preserve for us a chronology of the 
Jews and their forefathers by real tradition, or to provide the later 
commentators with magic powers, in respect to the most exoteric 
elements of history, may seem indispensable to some, and absurd 
to others. Historical inquiry has nothing whatever to do with such 
idle, preposterous and often fallacious assumptions." — (EgypVs place 
in Univ. Hist.) 

The physical history of mankind, as wrought out in the 
last few years, is, to our minds, wholly irreconcilable with 
the account given in the Book of Genesis ; and as we do 
not, by any means, subscribe to the doctrine of our re- 
viewer that the " Bible must stand or fall as a whole,"* we 
have not hesitated to take the ground that the Book of 
Genesis has not come down to us in a reliable form, and 
have shown that this opinion is shared by many of the 
ablest Theologians of our day. 

Passing by much that might be said on the authority of 
the Pentateuch, it is proper, in connection with its Eth- 
nography, to state that the historical, or chronological dif- 
ficulties, are much aggravated by the fact, that we have, 
coming down to us from antiquity, three distinct Penta- 
teuchs, viz : the Hebrew, the Samaritan, and the Greek 
texts. They are all received as authority, though differ- 
ing in facts, and involved in historical obscurity. Though 
they all offer many serious Ethnological difficulties, we 
may admit, for the present, that the only important con- 
tradiction is in the chronology. This, however, is a point 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 1 1 

of vital importance, as there is no history without chro- 
nology. We shall see that all of them are wrong on this 
point. 

But let us pause for a moment till the reviewer comes up. 
"What right has Dr. Nott to say that the "original Hebrew 
text has come down to us in so many mutilated forms, 
differing from the long lost original? It is an assertion 
which no true scholar, who is not swayed by some amazing 
prejudice, and does not rush impetuously on some fore- 
gone conclusion, would dare to hazard." And then, to con- 
vict us of gross ignorance, and "remove all doubt" as to the 
uniformity of the Hebrew text, he gives from De Rossi 
" all the various readings in more than 800 MSS and edi- 
tions collated by himself, so far as the first ten chapters 
of Genesis are concerned." He then goes on to display, 
in parallel lines, (quoting back at us from Norton to show 
our " want of scholarship !") these readings ; and as all 
he contends for does not influence the point at issue, in the 
slightest degree* we may safely admit his assumptions, 
though he says nothing about the interpretations, anach- 
ronisms, &,c, &,c., which have bothered even the Ortho- 
dox. 

When, however, we spoke of " mutilated Hebrew text,'" 
we certainly did not expect to be taken in the restricted 
sense of the reviewer, nor is it possible that he could have 
so understood us. We clearly alluded to all those texts, 
Hebrew, Samaritan, and Greek, which have sprung from 
some unknown original, which it is presumed was in the 
Hebrew language ; all these texts being appealed to by 
divines as authoritative ! But if Dr. Howe is willing to 
rest the argument, touching the common origin of the hu- 
man races on the present Hebrew text alone, we certainly 
should not object ; for, though he is clearly not posted up 
on the point, it is settled among Egyptologists that the 
chronology of this text (the pivot on which the argument 
turns) is utterly irreconcilable with the monumental his- 
tory of Egypt, not to mention the chronology of China, 
&,c The reviewer, though he manifestly prefers the He- 
brew text, with its short chronology, has too much tact not 
to leave a crack through which to crawl out as necessity 
requires. The Pentateuch, though confessedly originally 
written in Hebrew (when, where, and by whom, doubt- 
ful) has, at unknown epochs, wandered off into Samari- 
tan, and even comparatively modern Greek ; and, strange 



12 Ancient and Scrijrture Chronology. 

to say, the Greek version is now mainly relied on ; 
or rather, the advocates for the unity of the races have 
been compelled to fall back on the chronology of this 
" degenerate text" as their last hope for chronology ! 

Let us call the attention of the reader, for a moment, 
more particularly to this subject of Bible chronology, 
which, though very simple, is understood by few. Of the 
antediluvian Patriarchs we shall say nothing, as we have 
arguments enough without them. 

We are told in Genesis that the whole human race was 
destroyed by the deluge, except Noah and his family; and 
that, from these are descended all the present inhabitants 
of the earth. In order that there may be no misunder- 
standing about the matter, we will here introduce a por- 
tion of the XI chapter of Genesis, and beg the reader to 
bear in mind that there is no other chronology for this 
period in the Bible. So far, too, from there being any thing 
to contradict, the reviewer attempts to establish its cor- 
rectness by quotations from the New-Testament ; which, 
though making very vague allusions to certain things in 
the Pentateuch, he regards as full endorsement of the 
whole : 

" These are the generations of Shern : Shem was a hundred years 
old, and begat Arphaxad two years after the flood : 

" And Shem lived, after he begat Arphaxad, five hundred years, 
and begat sons and daughters. 

" And Arphaxad lived five and thirty years, and begat Salah. 

" And Arphaxad lived, after he begat Salah, four hundred and 
three years, and begat sons and daughters. 

" And Salah lived thirty years, and begat Eber. 

" And Salah lived, after he begat Eber, four hundred and three 
years, and begat sons and daughters. 

" And Eber lived four and thirty years, and begat Peleg. 

" And Eber lived, after he begat Peleg, four hundred annd thirty 
years, and begat sons and daughters. 

" And Peleg lived thirty years, and begat Reu. 

" And Peleg lived, after he begat Reu, two hundred and nine 
years, and begat sons and daughters. 

" And Reu lived two and thirty years, and begat Serug. 

" And Reu lived, after he begat Serug, two hundred and seven 
years, and begat sons and daughters. 

"And Serug lived thirty years, and begat Nahor. 

"And Serug lived, after he begat Nahor, two hundred years, and 
begat sons and daughters. 

" And Nahor lived nine and twenty, and begat Terah. 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 



13 



" And Nahor lived, after he begat Terah, a hundred and nineteen 
years, and begat sons and daughters. 

" And Terah lived seventy years, and begat Abram, Nahor, and 
Haran." 

The Pentateuch seems to be designed, almost exclu- 
sively, as a history of the Hebrew race, and we have here 
the generations of Shem, (the son of Noah,) down to 
father Abraham ; thus giving us a clear and distinct chro- 
nology, frem the deluge, down to a point which can be 
sufficiently aproximated for all practical purposes. We 
have data in Genesis for fixing pretty nearly the entrance 
of the Israelites into Egypt and their exode. But, in order 
to present these chronological data in a perfectly clear view, 
we give these generations in a tabular form, and place 
beside each other the Hebrew, Samaritan and Septuagint 
texts. And also, the genealogies according to Josephus : 

TABLE OF PATRIARCHAL GENEALOGIES AFTER THE 
DELUGE. 



GENERATIONS. 



RESIDUES. 



Deluge — Shem. 

Arphaxad, 

Cainan, 

Salah, 

Eber, 

Peleg or ) 

Plialeg. j 

Reu or Ragan. 

Serug, 

Nahor, 

Terah, 



ffeb. Sam. Sept. Joseph. Heb. Sam. Sept. Hcb. Sam. Sept. 



10. Abraham, 
Totals. 



2 

35 

30 
34 
30 

32 
30 
'29 

70 



2 
135 

130 
134 
130 

132 

130 

79 

70 



292! 942 



2 12 

135 135 

130 130 

134 134 

130 130 



132 

130 

79 

70 



130 
132 
120 
170 



1072 993 



1948 2249 33343229 



500 


500 


500 




600 


403 


303 


403 
330 




438 


403 


303 


303 




433 


430 


270 


270 




404 


209 


109 


209 




239 


207 


107 


207 




239 


200 


100 


200 




230 


119 


69 


129 




148 


135 


75 


135 


205 


145 



250 



We have here the chronology of the human race, as 
given in Genesis, reduced to the simple rule of addition, 
and the reader cannot fail to be struck, at first glance, by 
the wide discrepancy of the texts as to the epoch of Abra- 
ham, viz: 292— 942 — and 1072 years — notwithstanding 
u want of scholarship" in complaining that the He- 



our 



brew text had come down to us in so many mutilated 
forms." We here, too, see ample grounds for those amia- 
ble disputes amongst theologians, which casi a doubt over 



14 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

the soundness of the reviewer's doctrine, that insists upon 
receiving the Bible '• as a whole" without asking any 
questions. We do not doubt the reviewer's honesty and 
sincerity, but confess, (hat, from the numerous extraordi- 
nary conclusions he has arrived at, in the course of his 
critique, we are forced to believe that he is utterly inca- 
pable of investigating, fairly, any point which comes in 
contact with those religious opinions he was taught in 
early life. How can he so stoutly contend for the histo- 
rical accuracy of any text, when he is compelled to fall 
back on the Greek translation, where it suits his conve- 
nience to do so- Is it not strange, too, that the original 
text could thus be mutilated, and no body be able to tell 
when, where, or how it was done — mutilated, too, in its 
most vital part ? If the book of Genesis has been tam- 
pered with here, what guaranty have we for the rest of 
it ? Where is the proof of the truthfulness of the genealo- 
gies, and other Ethonological facts, which we shall show 
are contradicted by modern discovery and science ? 

" We pity Dr. Nott," says our truly benevolent re- 
viewer " in his deep bewilderment, on the dark mountains 
where he is wandering ; we would fain reach him a help- 
ing hand ;" and he certainly here comes like a ministering 
angel to relieve us from our sad dilemma. " It is well 
known," says Professor Howe, " to all who have turned 
their attention to this subject (chronology) that there is a 
great difference between the chronology of the Hebrew 
Bible, and of the Septuagint and the Samaritan Pentateuch. 
The deluge happened according to the Septuagint B. C. 
3248 — according to the Samaritan Pentateuch, 2998 ; ac- 
cording to the Hebrew, 2288, according to the English 
Bible 2348-The difference between the two extremes is 
958 years. Tho creation of the whole world, according 
to the Septuagint, took place 5886 B. C; according to 
the Samaritan Pentateuch, 4304 B. C; according to the 
Hebrew text, 4104 ; according to Arch Bishop Usher and 
English Bible, 4004 B. C; making a difference between 
the extremes of 1882 years. 1 ' " This difference appears 
to be the result, not of accident, but of design ; to have 
arisen not from the casual errors of transcribers, but from 
studied alteration, or adaptation in the Samaritan and He- 
brew compilation, or in that of the LXX; an adaptation 
which has occurred long subsequent to the time when the 
original Scriptures were written." 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 15 

After this, has the reader any idea of what the Doctor 
means by mutilation of texts ? Is the religion of Jesus 
Christ to " stand or fall," with books like these — all taken 
together — the whole or none ? 

Professor Stuart has spoken bold and manly truth in the 
following language : 

" The truth plainly is, that the public mind begins to be weary of 
being tossed so long on a tempestuous sea of conjecture, in regard 
to the meaning of Scripture. Men of inquiring minds wish to know 
what the Bible says when interpreted by principles of exegesis 
which are stable, well grounded, and capable of an honest, and open, 
and intelligible defence."* 

Though differing widely from Professor Stuart in his 
doctrines, we commend the boldness, manliness and hon- 
esty with which he sets his face against all 4 occult 1 mean- 
ings of the Bible language, contends for its straightforward 
signification and intent, and grapples with difficulties in- 
stead of dodging them by ingenious interpretations, which 
make it mean any thing or nothing. 

We really feel as if we were doing God's service as 
well as man's service — not speaking irreverently — in kill- 
ing off such commentators as this reviewer ; and we pray 
the reader to bear with us a little longer, for, though we 
cannot afford the time or space which is necessary to ex- 
pose a tithe of his blunders, we wish to say enough to 
silence him for the future. 

" Dr. Nott, again, speaks disrespectfully of the English version of 
the Scriptures. He makes the astonishing assertion that ' the He- 
brew language may be said only to have been recovered within the 
last century, by modern oriental^.' Most surprising is it that any 
one could believe that the Jews should have wholly lost a knowledge 
of their ancient and sacred tongue ; and that a knowledge of it 
should only have been recovered by modern orientalists, displays 
an amazing want of reading and scholarlike accuracy, and a credu- 
lity exceedingly rare, except in an unbeliever, dkc." 

We feel assured that Bunsen, Lepsius, Birch, Lance, 
Cohen, and other philologists of our day, would not be so 
much astounded as Dr. Howe, at the assertion that there 
is more Hebrew learning in the 19th century than has been 
at any time for two thousand years — and that there was not 
Hebrew knowledge enough in England in 1611, A. D. to 

■^Interpretation of prophecy. 



16 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

make a good translation of the Bible. Passing over the 
well-known fact that it is so, what is there so extraordi- 
nary that the Jews, when we call to mind their melan- 
choly history, should have lost much of their ancient lan- 
guage 1 In the 8th century, B. C, the ten tribes were 
conquered and -carried captive into Assyria Not only is 
their language lost, but it is a matter of dispute what has 
become of the tribes themselves ! In the 6th century, B. 
C, the remaining two tribes were conquered and carried 
to Babylon, where they remained seventy years, till re- 
leased and sent back by Cyrus — many remained, through 
preference, in Babylon, and the others returned to Pales- 
tine, speaking a foreign language ; and Jrom that day to 
this, the Hebrew has been a dead language — a period of 
about 2,500 years ! More especially, since the destruction 
of the temple by Titus, 70 A. D., have the Jew r s been pro- 
verbially a scattered and persecuted race ; without good 
seminaries of learning, without libraries, without peace, 
quiet, and other requisites for deep philological studies. 
Even the Septuagint translation, supposed to have been 
made by learned Jews, before Christ, in the palmy days 
of Alexandrian learning, is pronounced by Bunsen to be 
" creditable," and De Wette, whose authority will not be 
questioned, says that it betrays the want of an accurate 
acquaintance with the Hebrew language.* 

* A few extracts from De Wette, than whom no lngher authority exists in 
Germany, should quiet in some degree the astonishment of Dr. Howe. 

" A knowledge of the language (Hebrew) which is contained in the scanty 
relics of the Old Testament, has been preserved, though but imperfectly, by 
•means of tradition. Some time after the destruction of Jerusalem, in the 
Palestine and Babylonian schools, and^ter the 11th century, in those of Spain, 
this tradition was aided by the study^f the Arabic language and its gram- 
mar. Jerome learned the Hebrew from Jewish scholars. Their pupils were 
the restorers of Hebrew learning among the Christians in the 16th century." 

The lexicographers, grammarians and commentators — Abulwalid, David Kim- 
chi, Elias Levita, Jarchi, Aben Esra, Tanchem, and others, preserve this tradi- 
tion of the learned. In general it attains to a high degree of credibility, 
though, in the course of time, much has been lost, and, many errors have been 
admitted." 

De Wette passes in teview the various versions, or translations, commencing 
with the Septuagint (made before Christ); and coming down to those of later 
date. — He handles them pretty roughly. Of the Septuagint, the most cele- 
brated, he says : 

" As a whole, the version is chargeable with want of literalness, and also an 
arbitrary method, whereby something foreign to the text is brought in. In 
general it betrays the want of an accurate acquaintance with the Hebrew 
language, <fec." 

See Parker's translation of De Wette, Boston, 1843. 

See, also, Hunk's Palestine, — The reviewer will there find an admirable 
history of the Hebrew language, and the manner in which it is being reclaimed. 



Ancient and Scrip! arc Chronology. 17 

Where are the Hebrew grammars, lexicons, and other 
evidences of Jewish philology, previous to the 18th cen- 
tury 1 Who are the Hebrew scholars comparable to Ge- 
senius, De Wette, Ewald, Eichorn, Cohen, and a hun- 
dred others that might be named ? Can the reviewer call 
the name of an English or American Jew who will rank 
with these scholars '( The Doctor has a very convenient 
way occasionally of getting round difficulties ; he tells us 
that Selden speaks of it (English translation) as the best 
in the world. — Horsely, " as having enriched and adorned 
our language' 1 — and so on, with Dr. White, Dr. Geddes, 
&e. Did it ever occur to the reviewer to ask how these 
men would rank in Germany as Hebrew scholars ? " Pro- 
fessor Stewart," he continues, " represents it as the best 
effort at a translation amongst the English divines (!!!) with 
the exception of Lowth's classic work on Isaiah. " How 
came Lowth to know more Hebrew than the other En- 
glish divines? Does not the reviewer know, too, that great- 
er facilities now exist than have existed- for 2000 years 
for studying this language 1 There are more Hebrew 
MSS. now accessible to students in Europe — there are 
better Lexicons and Grammars — early contemporary lan- 
guages are now more readily compared from the facilities 
afforded by printing, and from the extension of philologi- 
cal researches, which are every day clearing up doubtful 
points — in short, we are really ashamed at having to ar- 
gue with a Theological professor on a point like this. 

When the reviewer comes to the geography — Ethio- 
pia — Cush, &,c. — of the Bible, he dives into such a hete- 
rogeneous mass of learning that we cannot pretend to 
follow him. Like the cuttle-fish, he so blackens the water 
behind him as effectually to baffle all pursuit. At one 
time he tells the old tradition (which Anlhon, Lardner, 
and every authority treats as fable) about Tyrian sailors, 
under Pharaoh Necho, circumnavigating Africa " 2100 
years before Vasquez de Gama doubled the Cape of Good 
Hope.'" Then he demonstrates the early commercial in- 
tercourse between China and Egypt, {quoting from Cra- 
nia Egyptiaca) by telling us of porcelain vessels bearing 
Chinese inscriptions, found in the monuments of Thebes. 
He is not at all aware that Pauthier has recently shown 
all these porcelains to be modern, as proven by the fact 
that all the inscriptions are in characters not invented till 
comparatively modern times ! It would neither amuse nor 



18 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

instruct the reader to follow the reviewer in all his mean- 
denngs through facts and fable on these points ; and with 
these — we take it — sufficient showings up in respect to 
them, we shall turn to other passages.* 

Again, " the difficulties found by Dr. Nott, with the 
Ethnography of the Bible, fill us with increased amaze- 
ment." 

Here again we must decline following, in detail, the 
profitless wanderings of the reviewer, and refer the reader 
to the head, "Ethnography, 11 of our " two Lectures, 11 the 
argument of which he leaves entirely untouched. We 
there showed that large cities, populous nations, different 
tongues, &c.» are spoken of in Genesis, in the third or fourth 
generations after Adam and Noah, thus proving that our 
texts are wrong. If farther confirmation be wanting, it 
will be found in the history of Egypt and China. 

We cannot, however, resist the temptation to give a 
specimen of the desperate shifts to which our reviewer 
and his associates are driven for arguments when pushed 
to the wall. He thus populates the earth after the crea- 
tion : 

" The mother of all (Eve) was doubtless a fruitful vine, and both 
she and Adam were in the vigor of their lives, for a length of years 
which the postdeluvians kneiv nothing of.\ Cain was a married 
man (?) when he slew Abel, and was then not less than 129 years 
of age. Seth, who was appointed by God to occupy the place of 
Abel, whom Cain slew, was born to Adam when he was 130 years 
old. The natural increase of man is extremely rapid when no hind- 
rance is interposed. ' An Island first occupied by a few shipwrecked 
English sailors, in 1589, and discovered by a Dutch vessel in 1667, 
is said to have been found peopled, after 80 years, by 12,000 souls, 
all the descendants of 4 mothers.' " " When the Creator under- 
took to people the earth, we may suppose that his providence ar- 
' ranged for this end, and no hindrance was allowed to interpose. It 

* We are indebted to the kindness of Mr. Birch for a pamphlet, entitled 
" Observations on the Statistical Tablet of Karuack," by himself, which we 
recommend to the reviewer. It is a most curious and instructive account of 
Egyptian commerce and conquests, as far back as Cheops — long before Abra- 
ham. 

f This remark is perfectly true, for Sarah laughed, and Abraham was as- 
tonished, when the Lord told them, at the ages respectively of 90 and 100 
years, that they should have a child. They, too, were contemporaries of Noah, 
Shem, Ham, Japheth, and of course, were familiar with their ancestor's history, 
from Adam down. Even these incredible ages of the Patriarchs do not re- 
move chronological difficulties, and Pilchard, himself, has abandoned them as 
untenable and useless. 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 19 

is believed that the death of Abel was the first, which occurred in the 
family of man. It is not an unreasonable supposition, therefore, as 
fiynres demonstrate, that the family of Adam embraced from 191,- 
000 to 200,000 people at the banishment of Cain." 

Yes, simple reader, 200,000 descendants from a single 
pair in 130 years 1 ! ! m 

How can we argue a grave subject like that before us, 
when we are met by such absurdities as these ? Though 
our reverend reviewer has not the slightest authority, or 
reason, for his hypothesis, he assumes that human nature 
was entirely different in the beginning from what it has 
been for the last 4 or 5000 years ; that Adam and Eve 
were endowed with supernatural " vigour ;" that they had 
children previous to Seth ; — then quotes a ridiculous state- 
ment from the proverbially credulous Wiseman, showing 
that 12,000 souls came from four mothers in 80 years, &,c 
Why does he have to travel ofT after facts that have no 
vouchers or probability ? " What "hindrance" has there 
been in the United States, and other countries, to the in- 
crease of population 1 Did any body ever hear of four 
mothers, in 80 years, producing 1000 souls ; much less of 
200,000 from a pair in 130 years— or even 12,000 from 
four mothers in 80 years ? And then, to embellish the pic- 
ture, we must imagine the most horrible incest of fathers, 
mothers, brothers, sisters,' &c, mingled together in viola- 
tion of the laws of God, laws of humanity, and laws of 
nature ; — we say laws of nature, for we know that a race 
cannot be perpetuated, and must degenerate, through such 
revolting and incestuous practices. Malthus, if our memo- 
ry serves, imagines circumstances under which a popula- 
tion might possibly double in 10 years, and, at this rate, 
130 years would give, from a pair, about 8000 ; but even 
this is a rate of increase without example. The United 
States does not double in 20 years, with the immense tide 
of emigration from all parts of Europe added to the births. 
And yet the reviewer gravely spins a yarn about 12,000 
souls from four mothers in 80 years ! The reviewer, of 
course insists strongly upon the vigour of the prolific patri- 
archs, continued through their long lives of little less than 
1000 years ; but, admitting his premises, he cannot keep 
up with the cities, tongues, nations, immense popula 
tions which we find covering the face of the land. He 
has not, with all, chronology enough, by at least 1000 
years, even with the aid of the Septuagint But when 
2 



20 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

such men as Prichard give up the ages of the Patriarchs, 
as every reasonable man must, such writers as our re- 
viewer may well spare themselves the unnecessary argu- 
ment. The issue is at an end. 

But we have no wish to waste time with the antedilu- 
vian generations ; the postdiluvian embrace all that is es- 
sential to our present argument. ' We are told that all the 
inhabitants of the earth, except Noah and his family, were 
destroyed by the deluge, and that, from these, are de- 
scended all the present races of the earth. There were, 
(as exhibited in our table) only 10 generations, according 
to Genesis, between the flood and Abraham ; and the'se 
generations, according to the Hebrew text, which is enti- 
tled to most respect, consumed but 292 years — a period 
confessedly too short to account for the immense popula- 
tion — its wide dispersion — the diversity of types, and nu- 
merous events which preceded Abraham. If we retreat, 
as the advocates of unity are compelled to do, upon the 
Septuagint chronology (the longest admissible) of 1072 
years, we are still very far short of the true antiquity of 
our present races, as will be seen when we speak of Egypt. 
We are told in Genesis, that, only three generations after 
Noah, there were already " great cities," as Nineveh, Re- 
hoboth, Calah, Risen, &c; that Nimrod, the grand-son of 
Ham, " began to be a mighty one in the earth ;" that dif- 
ferent languages already existed ; that Abraham had left 
in Chaldea a populous country ; had found, on his arrival, 
the " Canaanites in the land ;" that, when driven to Egypt 
by famine, he found there a Pharaoh ruling over a mighty 
kingdom, as we shall see of 7 or 8,000,000 of inhabitants, 
in a high state of civilization ; and, according to Lepsius, 
Bunsen, Birch, and all competent authority, the Pyramids 
already erecting thpir proud summits to designate the 
resting places of twelve extinct dynasties. 

" As to the physical history of man," says Dr. Howe, 
" so far as touched upon by Dr. Nott, we must leave it 
chiefly in abler hands. 11 We must here commend the 
prudence and discretion of the reviewer, and regret, for 
his own reputation, that he had not left it entirely to his 
friend, Dr. Bachman. whose even more extraordinary 
blunders we shall take much delight in exposing on a fu- 
ture occasion. 

We understand him to admit clearly, that " the negro 
does not become a white man, nor the black man white 11 
under the influence of modern physical causes ; but, as ac- 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 21 

cording to his doctrines, it must have happened at some 
time or other, it becomes necessary, in order to carry his 
point, to upset the even current of nature's law by one of 
those convenient theories which come to his aid so often. 
" The only thing," says he, " which this theory supposes 
js, that, in the early ages after the flood, and before the 
fast monumental evidence* of the existence of the various 
types and complexions of men, causes operated under a 
special providence, with a rapidity and power far beyond 
that which is ordinary now.'''' " The God of nature can 
stir into quicker action, or give a new direction to the pow- 
ers of nature; for man himself, within his limited circle, 
can do so and make them accomplish his purpose. — Elec- 
tricity, chemistry, and steam are in our day accomplishing 
wonders." 

When an antagonist is driven to this sort of logic, in a 
question of facts, it would be an insult to any understand- 
ing to offer at serious refutation. 

We shall, therefore notice but a single point, where he 
brings to his aid the oft quoted statement of Professor 
Tiedeman, of Heidelberg, on the brain of the negro, com- 
pared with the European and ourang-outang. {Phil. 
Trans., 1836, pp. 519,520. Our reviewer's object is to 
prove that, " the brain of the negro is not inferior to that 
of other races of men ;" and he quotes the following 
sentence from our lectures as a text : " Dr. Morton has 
established the fact, that the cranial capacity of the Mon- 
gol, Indian, and Negro, and all dark skinned men, is 
smaller than that of the pure white man.'''' 

We beg leave here to quote him fully, as the point is 
really one of just importance. He says 

" This statement is made in such a form that it cannot be gain- 
said. Yet, if Dr. Nott, had used the term Caucasian instead of 
the " pure white man," it would not have been impregnable. Tiede- 
man 's testimony is entitled to as much weight as Morton's, and his 
measurements have every appearance of being perfectly accurate. 
He adds to his own testimony, that of Dr. Hamilton, who also insti- 
tuted experiments to the same end. If Dr. Morton's collection is 
the largest of any individual in the world, Tiedeman had the public 
and private collections of Germany, England, Scotland and Ireland 
before him. Only in the crania of the Aboriginal tribes of America, 
had Dr. Morton the advantage. Of the other varieties, Tiedeman V 

* Bear in mind, reader, that the " first monumental evidence," according to 
Lepsius, Bunsen, Birch, Barrucchi, Gliddon, Ac, <fcc, wa9 prior to the Genesis 
date of the flood, and that the races were already distinct. 



22 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 



measurements were more than twice as numerous. The respective 
number of skulls measured, is as follows : 

Tiedeman. Morton. 

117 52 

20 10 

43 18 

27 147 

41 29 



Caucasian skulls 
Mongolian " 
Malay " 

American " 
Ethiopean " 



248 256 

" The following digest of Tiedeman's tables may be acceptable 
to those who are curious in such matters, and will be understood if 
it is borne in mind that the weight is not of the actual brain itself, 
but of millet seed, with which the various crania were filled to as- 
certain their relative capacity. Dr. Morton adopted the same me- 
thod of filling the crania, but gives the measurement of the internal 
capacity in inches. 



No. of 
Skulls. 



Caucasians of Europe, 
Asia and Africa. 



Malay, American, Mongo- 
lian, and Ethiopean. 



11 
38 
4 
24 
18 
38 
24 



European skulls 
average weight, 

Egyptian 



Asiatic 



lb-oz-dr-gr. 
.%- 5-2—30 



-4-4—56 



5-0-0— i 



Malay skulls, 

American (Indian,) 

Mongolian, 

Ethiopean, 



lb-oz-dr-gr. 
3-4_6_21 

3-3-7—12 
3-2-7—55 
3-1-6—24 



These were all skulls of males ; the measurements of females are 
not added ; omitting the Egyptian, which were four in number, the 
average of the Caucasian is 3-2-5-33. 

Among the Ethiopean crania are those of nations of Congo, Mada- 
gascar, Loango, Guinea, Angola, Mozambique, Bushmen, CafFres, 
Hottentots, and Ashantees. His Asiatics embrace the crania of l he 
following nations : one Russian, from Orenburg; one Werschandier, 
beyond Mount Taurus; one American; one Arab; four Cingalese; 
eight Hindoos; one Birman; two Circassians; three Georgians; two 
Parsees. It thus appears that, though the European Caucasians 
stand highest, the Asiatic Caucasians stand lowest for cranial capa- 
city, and that if the average be taken of the lohole Caucasian race, 
they will be inferior to all the rest, the Ethiopean excepted." 

Now, we are much indebted to Dr. Howe for this table, 
for we certainly could not find more reliable and conclu- 
sive facts to substantiate our assertion, as to the difference 
in the " cranial capacity" of races. 

" If Dr. Nott," says our reviewer, " had used the term 
Caucasian, instead of * pure white man] " he would have 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 23 

had, he thinks, the argument all his own way ; but we 
did not use the term Caucasian, and we omitted it inten- 
tionally. We have before said that we can see no reason 
(if the ethnology of Genesis is untenable) why the Al- 
mighty may not have created, at different points, a hun- 
dred pairs of human beings, as well as one. Nor can we 
see any reason why the arbitrary term, Caucasian, should 
be persisted in, after it is ascertained that the Hebrews, 
Egyptians, Hindoos, &c, (heretofore included under this 
term) were as distinct as now, from each other, at an 
epoch so early as to be incompatible with even the long 
chronology of the Septuagint ! 

According to Tiedeman's measurements, the average 
weight of European brains is about five ounces greater 
than the Asiatic ! Now, who were these Asiatics ? They 
were principally Hindoos, who, from the earliest records 
and monuments, possessed substantially the same physical 
type as now — dark skins, small heads, &c. The Israel- 
ites, too, were Asiatics, but certainly Tiedeman would not 
contend that they had five ounces less of brain than Euro- 
peans ! We have shown, in another place, that the He- 
brew head has not changed during, at least, 3,500 years, 
in any climate ; and we have the true skulls of Egyptians, 
entombed 5,000 years ago. According to this table, too, 
we have the brain of the negro about four ounces less 
than the European, and three ounces less than the Egyp- 
tian, though the Egyptian and negro both lived in Africa, 
at least 4,000 years ago. We have alluded, in other 
places, to the antiquity of the Chinese, the aborigines of 
America, &c. The measurements of Dr. Morton confirm 
substantially those of Tiedeman. 

We really hope and believe, after all this, that we shall 
never hear any more ethnography from the Rev. Dr. 
Howe ; though he may enlighten the world, one of these 
days, with the evidences of " Alphabetic writing, anteda- 
ting the time of Moses." Before, however, he undertakes 
the latter task, at which he hints, we would advise him, 
for his own reputation, to study carefully the several 
works of Pauthier, Bunsen, Lepsius, Lanci, &c, on this 
point. 

The reviewer's comments on Chinese and Hindoo chro- 
nology, should be classed under the head of the ludicrous 
merely. It will take stronger muscles than ours, to read 
them with the orthodox gravity of aspect, under which, 



24 Ancient and Scriptvre Chronology. 

doubtless, they were penned. It was asserted by Dr. 
Nott, in his Lectures, that the chronology of Genesis is 
destroyed by its own inconsistences ; and that it could be 
shown, from the monuments of Egypt, China, India, Ame- 
rica, &c, that it has no historical ground-work whatever* 

" This," says the reviewer, *' is assuredly a large and boastful pro- 
mise. We see him, a very Goliah, flourishing his spear like a 
weaver's beam, and defying the armies of Israel. Where are these 
monuments of India ? Are they of paper, earth or stone ? Does 
the Dr. refer to the Puranas and their Yugs, covering a period of 
4,320,000 years ? And where are his monuments of China ? Does 
he then believe that one emperor reigned 18,000, another 18,000, 
and another 45,600 years ? Does he not know that the Chinese 
themselves regard their high chronology as fabulous ; that their 
respectable historians do not allude to it, except to call it in question?" 

The first idea which crossed our brain after reading all 
this, was the desperate charge of Don Quixote upon the 
wind-mills ; for we certainly gave no provocation for such 
a crusade against time and space as this. We simply as- 
serted that " Pauthier, the greatest Chinese scholar of the 
age, assures us that the Chinese records give indubitable 
evidence of a succession of emperors, from the year 2,637 
B. C, down to the present day, nearly 5,000 years," and 
that he even extended the history, though in less authentic 
form, to the time of the great Fou-hi, 3,468 years B. C. 
We did not make the slightest allusion to those fabulous 
tales, which his reverence seems resolved to tilt against. 
And, to make the whole affair the more ridiculous, he 
brings up a single authority, (unknown to fame, amongst 
Chinese scholars) the Rev. Mr. Medhurst, to make out his 
case, and, after all, ends — by refuting himself ! 

The reviewer evidently never saw Pauthiers great work 
on China, and it may be doubted whether he knew there 
was such an author in existence ; though, on every thing 
connected with China, his reputation in Europe, is like 
that of Lepsius in Egyptian matters. It may not, there- 
fore, be uninteresting to the reviewer to learn something 
of this author's scheme of chronology. 

Pauthier, speaking of the antiquity of the Chinese na- 
tion, divides its history into three periods, viz : the ante- 
historic, the semi-historic, and the historic. The first, or 
purely fabulous, has been sufficiently commented on by 
our reviewer. The semi-historic we also excluded from 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 25 

our little book, as wanting the confirmation necessary for 
our purpose ; though, like the early days of Greece and 
Rome, (before faithful records were kept and transmitted) 
it must have consumed much time ; and Pauthier tells us, 
that its ground-work rests upon such solid foundation, that, 
* quelques historiens meme, tres-rationnels, comme le ctlebre 
Tchou-hi (ou Tchou-Fou-Tseu) sont remonte jusqu 9 a 3,400 
ans avant cette mime epoque" (Christian era.) 

When we come down to the historic period, which 
begins 2,637 B. C, we get on unquestionably firm ground, 
which is not "regarded by the Chinese themselves as fabu- 
lous" but, on the contrary, is regarded by all Chinese his- 
torians as indisputable. 

" Vexamen critique, (says Pauthier) de la chronologie Chinoise, 
que Vempereur Kien-Loung fit /aire par le college des Han-lin, ou 
Academie Imperials, et par touts les corps litte'raire de sa 
capitate, et qu 1 il fit imprimer dans son palais en IV 6 V, ne fait 
remonter le premier cycle de soixante annexes, de 365 jours Q heures 
chacune, q\C a la, Q\e annexe de cet empereur, ou 2,637 avant J. C. ; 
laissant ainsi les 60 premieres, ou la valeur d'un cycle, dans les 
temps douteux. Cest ce tableau chronologique qui porte ainsi le 
plus haut charactere de certitude, et dont nous a.vons un exemplaire 
entre les mains, que nous avons suivies contamment pour les dates, 
dans le cours de cet ouvrage." 

The reviewer will also find in this work a well authen- 
ticated account of the celebrated " inscription de Yu" on 
a rock of Mount Heng-chau, bearing date of 2,278 B. C. 
" Cette inscription originale en vieux characteres Chinois 
nomme ko-te'ou, a forme de tetard, que Ton dit avoir ete 
invent6 par Fou-Hr, 2,950 avant notre ere." Whether or 
not these ancient writing characters go back to 2,950 B. 
C, they must go far beyond Usher's date of the flood, and 
leave no doubt that China had a language, a literature, 
and population, peculiar to itself, and disconnected from 
the known nations of antiquity. The inscription of Yu 
antedates the epoch of Abraham some 200 years. 

Amongst other curious evidences of the antiquity of 
China, Pauthier gives details of the manners and customs 
of these early times ; — pictures of royal hunting scenes ; 
and of people living on the confines of the empire ; but, 
perhaps, the most remarkable and conclusive fact is, that 
of an eclipse of the sun, recorded in the ChouKing, (Livre 
Sacro) during the reign of Tchoung-Kang ; and for not 
foretelling which, the astronomers Hi and Ho were put to 



26 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

death. This eclipse occurred in the year 2,155 B. C. We 
are not aware that any good authority, in China, or out of 
it, doubts the astronomical knowledge of the Chinese at 
this day ; and this knowledge, as well as the physical type 
of that people, at that epoch, leave no doubt of a long pre- 
vious history. 

But we made allusion to the reviewer's refutation of 
himself, and here we give it. " In the days of Yaou, their 
first King, answering perhaps to Noah, a great inunda- 
tion occurred, the sky falling on the earth, and destroying 
the race of men. The date of this inundation is fixed by 
Medhurst from native documents at 2296 B. C, and the 
beginning of Yaou's reign at B. C. 2356. These dates 
accord then with those of the Hebrew Text. If we as- 
sume the Septuagint Chronology and Pauthier's state- 
ment, five or six hundred years is no brief period," &c. 

Here then, according to his own statement, the review- 
er carries back Chinese records to 2356 B. C. ! How long, 
let us ask, is it probable that the nation existed previous 
to this date ; when we reflect that these records were 
written in characters unlike those of all other nations, 
and that we have ample evidence also of a peculiar phy- 
sical type, peculiar manners, customs, religion, &c. ? But, 
so far from coinciding with the opinions of the reviewer 
and Medhurst, Pauthier carries the positive historic pe- 
riod back to Hoang-Ti, 2637 B. C, not to mention a long 
ante-historic period, which no Chinese historian doubts. 
Abraham certainly knew nothing of China, or its litera- 
ture, which was contemporary with that of Egypt, which 
he visited ; — nor could any of the ten generations which 
preceded Abraham have known any thing of Chinese his- 
tory ; for it must not be forgotten that Abraham, accord- 
ing to the " Hebrew Text,'' was 58 years old when Noah 
died. But every tyro in Egyptian history knows that 
Usher's date of the flood cannot stand against Egyptian 
Chronology, and the idea of mixing up Chinese and Jew- 
ish records, is too absurd to require serious notice, in the 
year 1850, even though with the temptation before us of 
playing the reviewer ! 

We should not, however, omit the following precious 
quotation, which our reviewer gives from Medhurst : 

" It is evident that Pawn-koo, the first man, according to the fa- 
bulous records of the Chinese, who acted at the separation of hea- 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 27 

ven and earth, could not have been long before Fuh-he, perhaps a 
thousand years — certainly not ten thousand ; and the time of Fuh- 
he must have have been very near Yaou and Shun, perhaps a hun- 
dred years — certainly not a thousand. No scholar should decline a 
thorough inquiry." 

Now, our reviewer did not comprehend one idea in this 
paragraph, or he certainly would have declined entering 
into the inquiry. The reader will call to mind that the 
reviewer has fixed the reign of Yaou at the year 2356 B. 
C.) (which he tells us accords with the Hebrew Text !) 
next, Paum-lwo, he cuts down to one thousand before 
Fuh-he, and the latter to one hundred before Yaou ; add 
these, together, and we have 3456 B. C, or about two 
hundred years beyond the Septuagint date of the flood I* 

After an exposure of blunders such as these, we cannot 
think of imposing on the reader, by commenting on the 
" Chronology of India," which the reviewer has been una- 
ble to meet with any thing but ridicule. If he will but 
take the trouble to read some approved book on the his- 
tory of the Sanskrit language, (the parent of so many 
ancient languages,) it may prove a useful lesson to him, 
without reference to "stone," or " earthen monuments," 
which are not wanting. We presume no student of Indian 
antiquity will doubt that India was one of the earliest 
centres of population on our globe. The work on India, 
of our caption — the Livres Sacres, of Pauthier — alone 
contains ample material, and is one to which the student 
may safely be referred. On the subject of ancient Chro- 
nology, by the way, Humboldt, in his Cosmos, has a pas- 
sage bearing directly on this point, and Humboldt is a 
gentleman and a Christian, whom even Bachman and 
Howe, and Smyth, and others of the very evangelical 
school, will hardly venture to gainsay. Bachman, indeed, 
gives testimony in his favor. He describes him as one 
who " has perpetuated no doctrines that are opposed to 
the laws of nature — that are injurious to morals or sub- 
versive of Christianity." 

The following passages are from " Cosmos," Harper's 
edition, 1850, vol. 2, pp. 114, 115. 

" In the dimness of antiquity, which constitutes as it were, the 

* " The state of China," says the reviewer," can only be erected into an ar- 
gument against revelation by a prejudiced or unreflecting mind." When he 
throws up stones he should be careful to " stand from under." 



28 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

extreme horizon of true historical knowledge, we see many lumi- 
nous points, or centres of civilization, simultaneously blending their 
rays. Among these we may reckon Egypt at least five thousand 
years before our era, Babylon, Nineveh, Kashmir, Iran, and also 
China, after the first colony migrated from the north-eastern decli- 
vity of the Kuenslum into the lower river valley of the lloang-ho. 
" The principal chronological data for Egypt are as follows : — 
1 Mene, 3900 B. C. at least, and probably tolerably correct ; 3430, 
commencement of the fourth dynasty, which included the pyramid 
builders, Chephren Schafra, Cheops-Chufu, and Mykerinos or Ken- 
kera; 2200, invasion of the Hyksos under the twelfth dynasty, to 
which belongs Amenemha III., the builder of the original Laby- 
rinth. A thousand years, at least, and probably still more, must be 
conjectured for the gradual growth of a civilizatiou which had been 
completed, and had in part begun to degenerate, at least 3430 years 
B. C (Lepsius, in several letters to myself, dated March, 1846, 
and therefore after his return from his memorable expedition.) 
Compare, also, Bunsen's Considerations on the Commencement of 
Universal History, which, strictly defined, is only a history of recent 
times, in his ingenious and learned work, jEgyptens Stelle in der 
Weltgeschichte, 1845, erstes Buch, s. 11-13. The historical exist- 
ence and regular chronology of the Chinese go back to 2400, and 
even to 2*700 before our era, far beyond Ju-to Hoangsty. Many 
literary monuments of the thirteenth century B. C. are extant, and 
in the twelfth century B. C, Thscheu-li records the measurement of 
the length of the solstitial shadow taken with such exactness by 
Tscheu-kung, in the town of Losyaug, south of the Yellow River, 
that Laplace found that it accorded perfectly with the theory 
of the alteration of the obliquity of the ecliptic, which was only 
established at the close of the last century. All suspicion of a 
measurement of the earth's direction derived by calculating back, 
falls therefore to the ground of itself. See Edouard Biot, Sur la 
Constitution Politique de la Chine au 12eme Steele avant notre 
ere, 1845, p. 3 and 9. The building of Tyre and of the original 
temple of Melkrath, (the Tyrian Hercules,) would, according to the 
account which Herodotus received from the priests (II., 44.) reach 
back 2760 years before our era. Compare, also, Heereen, Ideen uber 
Politik una 1 Verkehr der Volker, th. i., 2, 1824, s. 12. Simplicius 
calculates, from a notice transmitted by Porphyry, that the date of 
the earliest Babylonian astronomical observations which were known 
to Aristotle, was 1903 years before Alexander the Great; and Ide- 
ler, who is so profound and cautious as a chronologist, considers this 
estimate in no way improbable. See his Handbuch der Chrouolo- 
gie, bd. i., s. 207; the Abhanlungen der Berliner Akad. auf das 
Jahr, 1814, s. 217; and Bockh, Metrol. Untersuckungen uber die 
Masse des Allerthums, 1838, s. 36. Whether safe historic ground 
is to be found in India earlier than 1200 B. C, according to the 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 29 

chronicles of Kashmeer, (Radjatanrangini, trad, par Troyer,) is a 
question still involved in obscurity; while Megasthenes, (Indica, ed. 
Schwanbeck, 1846, p. 50,) reckons for 153 Kings of the dynasty of 
Magadha, from Manu to Kandragupta, from sixty to sixty -four cen- 
turies, and the astronomer Aryabhatta, places the beginning of his 
chronology, 3102 B. C. (Lassen, lad. Alterthumsk., bd. i., s. 
478-505, 507.") 

. Moreover, though Humboldt expresses his belief in uni- 
ty of species, scientifically speaking, I am not aware that 
he has any where asserted that all races are of u one 
blood." He quotes with approbation the following pas- 
sage from " the noble and comprehensive work, Physiolo- 
gic des Menschen, of Johannes Muller, one of the greatest 
anatomists of the day :" 

"But whether the human races have descended from several 
primitive races of men, or from one alone, is a question which can- 
not be determined from experience." 

The reviewer's " surprise," and " amazement," at our 
folly and ignorance, seems to increase, with the rapidity 
of his ante-diluvian population. We expressed the opin- 
ion that there were some inklings of long chronology in 
the admirable work of Squier & Davis, on the " Ancient 
Monuments of the Valley of the Mississippi." Then, thus 
our reviewer : 

" Most surprising of all is Dr. Nott's declaration, that probably 
America contained an immense population, with organized govern- 
ments, and was advanced in civilization * as far back as the spuri- 
ous LXX date of the flood. 'The extreme antiquity of the mound 
builders of America,' which looms so largely in the intellectual 
horizon of Dr. Nott, bears no proportion, as set forth in their in- 
teresting work, to the antiquity of the chosen people of God. We 
can discover no trace of an opinion in the book in question, that 
the authors had any idea of so high an antiquity in reference to 
the mound builders, as the one asserted." 

We shall soon see which of us has the best pair of 
eyes ; and we hope to show that the reviewer here, as 
elsewhere, can see nothing but what he " wishes to see." 
He goes on to prove from the writings of Stephens, Cla- 
vigero, Prescott, and even Squier & Davis, that the Mon- 
uments of America could "hardly have been constructed 
till six hundred and forty-eight years A. D. I and " do not, 
therefore reach the date in question by nearly three thou- 
sand nine hundred years " 



30 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

u Thus does the strange fancy of Dr. Nott, as to the age of the 
mound builders, and other antiquities of America, melt like frost- 
work before the probabilities of history." 

But let us see how stand the facts. We will first give 
the dates of Clavigero, (adopted by the reviewer,) for the 
earliest recorded migrations of these mound builders ; for 
we presume the reviewer will concede, as it suits short 
Chronology best, that they were the same race as the 
Mexicans, Peruvians, and other semi-civilized tribes. 

The Toltecs arrived in Anahuac, or the country now 
called Mexico, migrating from the North, A. D., - 648 
They abandoned the country, - - " - 1051 
The Chichemecs arrived, - - - " - 1170 
The x\cholhuans arrived about, -»-«'- 1200 
The Mexicans reached Tula, - 1296 

They founded Mexico, - - - - " - 1325 

Now, so far from 648 A. D. being the extreme of abo- 
riginal chronology, is there not every reason to infer that 
these migrations begin where the history of the Mounds 
ends? Squier and Davis, Gallatin, Morton, etc.. tell us 
that this people, pressed upon by unknown causes, mi- 
grated, from the 7th to the 12th centuries, and have not 
left even a traditionary trace amongst their savage suc- 
cessors. And over this immense country, which they 
once occupied, (bounded by the Atlantic, Pacific, the 
Lakes and the Gulf,) are scattered many thousand 
mounds, which required, for their construction, immense 
labour, and which could have been supplied only by dense 
agricultural populations. 

" Not far from one hundred enclosures, of various sizes, and five 
hundred mounds, are found in Ross County, Ohio. The number of 
Tumuli in the State may be safely estimated at ten thousand, and 
the number of enclosures at one thousand, or fifteen hundred." 
(Squier and Davis.) 

From this single State, some idea may be formed of 
this ante-historical population. Does this look as if the 
year 648 A. D. was their chronological limit? when, too, 
we call to mind the facts stated by Dr. Morton, that the 
skulls found in these mounds correspond with those of 
the Toltec race, in Mexico, while they differ widely from 
those of the savages found, on the discovery of America, 
living around those very time-worn monuments. 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 31 

" The features common to all," say Squier and Davis, (of the 
mounds,) M are elementary, and identify them as appertaining to 
a single grand system, owing its origin to a family of men, mo- 
ving in the same general direction, acting under common impulses, 
and influenced by similar causes." 

Again, the same authors say, 

" The antiquity of the ancient monuments of the Mississippi val- 
ley has been made the subject of incidental remark, in the foregoing 
chapters. . . . The fact, that none of the ancient monuments occur 
upon the latest-formed terraces of the river-valleys of the Ohio, is 
one of much importance, in its bearings on this question. If, as we 
are amply warranted in believing, these terraces mark the degrees of 
subsidence of the streams, one of the four which may bo traced has 
been formed since those streams have followed their present courses. 
There is no good reason for supposing that the mound-builders 
would have avoided building upon that terrace, while they erected 
their works promiscuously on all the others. And if they had built 
upon it, some slight traces of their works would yet be visible, how- 
ever much influence we may assign to disturbing causes — overflows 
and shifting channels. Assuming, then, that the lowest terrace, on 
the Scioto river, for example, has been formed since the era of the 
mounds, we must next consider that the excavating power of the 
Western rivers diminishes yearly, in proportion as they approximate 
towards a general level. On the lower Mississippi — where, alone, 
the monuments are sometimes invaded by the water — the bed of 
the stream is rising, from the deposition of the materials brought 
down from the upper tributaries, where the excavating process is 
going on. This excavating power, it is calculated, is in an inverse 
ratio to the square of the depth — that is to say, diminishes as the 
square of the depth increases. Taken to be appro ximatively correct, 
this rule establishes that the formation of the latest terrace, by the 
operation of the same causes, must have occupied much more time 
than the formation of any of the preceding three. Upon these pre- 
mises, the time since the streams have flowed in their present courses 
may be divided into four periods, of different lengths, of which the 
latest, supposed to have elapsed since the race of the mounds fly ur- 
ished, is much the longest." . ..." In all the sepulchral mounds 
opened and examined, in the course of these investigations, with a 
single exception, the human remains have been found so much de- 
cayed, as to render any attempt to restore the skull, or, indeed, any 
portion of the skeleton, entirely hopeless. With this experience, it 
is considered extremely doubtful whether any of the numerous skulls 
which have been sent abroad, and exhibited as undoubted remains 
of the mound-builders, were really such. A few are probably ge- 
nuine," etc 



32 Ancient, and Scripture Chronology. 

" Considering that the earth around these skeletons is wonder- 
fully compact and dry, and that the conditions for their preservation 
are exceedingly favourable, while they are, in fact, so much decayed, 
we may form some approximate estimate of their remote antiquity. 
In the barrows of the ancient Britons, entire, well-preserved skele- 
tons are found, although possessing an undoubted antiquity of at 
least eighteen hundred years. Local causes may produce singular 
results, in particular instances, but we speak now of these remains 
in the aggregate." 

Another important fact, established by Dr. Morton, is 
the identity of shape in the skulls of the mound-builders 
and the Toltecs. He says, in commenting on a head 
figured in the work of Squier and Davis, from one of the 
Scioto mounds, 

"The vertical occiput, the prominent vertex, and great inter-pa- 
rietal diameter, all of which are strongly marked in this skull, are 
features characteristic of the American race, but more particularly 
of the Toltecan family, and of which the Peruvian head may be 
taken as the type." 

" We pass," continue the same authors, " to another fact, perhaps 
more important in its bearing upon the question of the antiquity of 
these works, than any of those presented above. It is, that they 
are covered with primitive forests, in no way distinguishable from 
those which surround them, in places where, it is probable, no clear- 
ings were ever made. Some of the trees of the forest have a posi- 
tive antiquity of from six to eight hundred years. They are found 
surrounded with the mouldering remains of others, undoubtedly of 
equal original dimensions, but now fallen, and almost incorporated 
with the soil. Allow a reasonable time for the encroachment of the 
forest, after the works were abandoned by their builders, and for the 
period intervening between that event and the date of the construc- 
tion, and we are compelled to assign them no inconsiderable anti- 
quity. But, as already observed, the forests covering these works 
correspond, in all respects, with the surrounding forests ; the same 
varieties of trees are found, in the same proportions, and they have 
a like primitive aspect. This fact was remarked by the late Presi- 
dent Harrison, and was put forward, by him, as one of the strongest 
evidences of the high antiquity of these works. In an address be- 
fore the Historical Society, of Ohio, he said : 

14 'The process by which nature restores the forest to its original 
state, after being once cleared, is extremely slow. The rich lands of 
the West are, indeed, soon covered again ; but the character of the 
growth is entirely different, and continues so fq| a long period. In 
several places upon the Ohio, and upon the farm which I occupy, 
clearings were made in the first settlement, of the country, and sub- 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 33 

sequently abandoned and suffered to grow up. Some of these new 
forests are now sure of fifty years growth ; but they have made so 
little progress towards attaining the appearance of the immediately 
contiguous forest, as to induce any man of reflection to determine 
that, at least, ten times fifty years must elapse before their complete 
assimilation can be effected. We find, in the ancient works, all that 
variety of trees which give such unrivalled beauty to our forests, in 
natural proportions. ... Of what immense age, then, must be the 
works so often referred to, covered, as they are, by at least the se- 
cond groivth, after the primitive forest state was regained ?" 

These mounds, from their number and magnitude, give 
indisputable evidences of the existence of very large 
agricultural populations. How many centuries were 
these populations increasing, migrating, and concentra- 
ting around so many thousand widely-scattered nuclei? 
How long was it before they had a density and command 
of labour requisite for such structures ? How long, after 
building such national monuments, did they live around 
them, before abandoning them ! Were they not the same 
people who migrated to Mexico and Central America, 
etc., from the 7th to the 1 2th century, A. D., or, if they 
were not, must not a little longer chronology be claimed 
for all these events ? Messrs. Squier and Davis tell us 
that the skeletons found in the barrows of the Ancient 
Britons are still perfect, at the end of eighteen hundred 
years ; while those of the Mississippi mounds have crum- 
bled into dust with time. More than all this, the few speci- 
mens of skulls, which, under peculiarly favouring circum- 
stances, have been preserved, show a conformation like no 
other race of the old continent ; and it may well be asked, 
where did they come from, if they are not indigenous to 
the soil ? In the three hundred years that the races of 
the old continent, (since the discovery of Columbus,) have 
been living in America, not the slightest approximation, 
any where, has been observed, to the aboriginal type. 
We know that the Jews have preserved their type, un- 
changed, for three thousand five hundred years, and there 
are ample grounds for believing that the aborigines of 
America, as well as the other races, have also preserved, 
from time immemorial, the same features and skulls. 

We musf now ask the charitable reader to assist us in 
finding some explanation of the language of Dr. Howe, 
when he says, tw We can discover no trace of an opinion, 
in the book in question, (Squier and Davis on the Mounds,) 



34 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

that the authors had any idea of so high an antiquity, in 
reference to the mound-builders.'" For ourselves, we can- 
not believe the reviewer ever read the book thoroughly ; 
or has informed himself on a single point under discussion. 
It will be seen that, in every thing touching Egypt and 
China, he has blundered even worse than when on the 
antiquity of American races. 

Certainly, when we trace the physical type of a race 
to such a probable antiquity, and then find this type to be 
different from any on the old continent ; and when, in 
addition, we connect, with these facts, the permanence of 
type, for thousands of years, in Jews, Chinese, Egyptians, 
etc., it is no very extravagant assertion, to say that Ame- 
rica was peopled at the Septuagint date of the flood. 

The most important of all ihe points connected with 
this discussion, is that of chronology ; and, in fact, it may 
be regarded as the pivot on which the whole controversy 
turns. It might, therefore, have been expected that our 
reviewer would here have laid out his whole strength ; and 
the more especially, as the Book of Genesis, to which he 
attaches such vital importance, must rest much of its 
claims to authenticity On the truthfulness of its chrono- 
logy. 

The reader, therefore, cannot be otherwise than " a- 
mazed " at the blunders which we shall take occasion to 
point out, and for which we are unable to offer an expla- 
nation ; as the little volume which he was reviewing had 
placed before him facts and authorities quite sufficient to 
have saved the reviewer from such an exposure. He has, 
however, stepped out of his way, to say hard things of 
others, and the importance of the subject demands that 
the truth should not be obscured by any tender forbear- 
ance in respect to him. 

Although the reader may find, in ihe review* other para- 
graphs quite as objectionable, we shall select a single one 
for comment, which covers the ground sufficiently. 

" As to chronological agreement, Champollion, Figeac, Bosellini, 
Leemans, and Mr.Gliddon, bring the era of Menes within the limits of 
the Septuagint chronology. Mr. G liddon makes the era of Menes, the 
first historic king in the Egyptian records, to he 2750 B. C, four hun- 
dred and ninety-six years after the Septuagint date of the deluge, 
and five hundred and ninety-six years before Abraham. Sir G. 
Wilkinson, on the contrary, fixes it at 2201 years B. C., or one hun- 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 35 

dred and forty-seven years after the deluge, according to the chro- 
nology of Usher." 

This paragraph would certainly create an innocent 
smile, in the year 1850, should it meet the eye of any one 
of the authorities alluded to. The reader is doubtless 
aware, that it is only about twenty-five years since Cham- 
pollion and his school had made sufficient advance in 
Egyptian hieroglyphics, to commence decyphering the 
monuments in which chronology had been so long locked 
up ; that every year has been adding new and important 
facts to our knowledge ; and that it is only^e years since 
the celebrated Prussian commission, with Lepsius at its 
head, returned from Egypt, with some three thousand new 
inscriptions. Is it not extraordinary, that the reviewer, in 
the face of such notorious facts, has had the boldness to 
go back to old books, and old editions, published ten or 
fifteen years ago, which are now entirely superseded 1 
With what propriety, let us ask, could a writer, twenty 
years hence, quote Layard's Nineveh, on a question of 
Assyrian chronology ? Rosellini has been dead some 
years ; but Champollion, Figeac, Leemans, and Gliddon 
have lived to keep pace with advancing science. 

With regard to Mr. Gliddon's authority, the reviewer 
might have saved himself a blunder by a reference lo his 
lectures — published in the Ethnological Journal — to his 
" Otia iEgyptiaca " — to his handbook of " the Nile, 1 ' or 
even to quotations in our lectures ; instead of quoting 
from his "Ancient Egmt," published in 1842. Mr. Glid- 
don says, in 1848, 

" Misled by English divines, whom I had been erroneously taught 
to look upon as authorities in Biblical criticism and chronology. I 
attempted, in 1842, to reconcile Egyptian annals with Septuagint 
computation, stating, at the same time, that I entertained strong 
doubts of the validity of my endeavours. Since that day, these 
philosophical heresies have been abandoned, as untenable ; and, 
having devoted four years to Hebraical studies, and the works of 
continental exegetists, my lectures have been conducted on different 
principles." 

It is generally conceded, by leading authorities, that 

there reigned over Egypt thirty royal dynasties, previous 

to the conquest of Alexander, in the 4th century, B. C; 

and even Sir G. Wilkinson concedes that the 18th dynasty 

3 



30 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

commenced as early as 1575, B. C. It is also conceded, 
that the lower part of Egypt was conquered, at some 
epoch prior to the 18th dynasty, and held, for a conside- 
rable length of time, by the Hyksos, or Shepherd Kings; 
and lastly, it cannot be denied that the preceding twelve 
dynasties must have consumed a very long period of 
time, probably as much as any preceding twelve dynasties; 
and yet the reviewer, and YV ilkinson, would contend that 
the epoch of Menes might be cut down to 2201 years, 
B. C! But even Wilkinson says, 

" I am aware that the era of Menes might be carried back to a 
much more remote period than I have assigned to it ; but, as we 
yet have no authority, farther than the uncertain accounts of Mane- 
tho's copyists, to enable us to fix the time, and the number of reigns 
intervening between his accession and that of Apappus, / have not 
placed him earlier, for fear of interfering with the date of the de- 
luge of Noah, which is 2348, B. C.l Top. Thebes, 1835. 

This is really a strange reason for twisting facts ; but, 
thanks to recent discoveries, we have no use for this date, 
or any other, for Noah's flood. In his " Modern Egypt," 
and "Hand-Book," 1843 and 1849, Wilkinson gives chro- 
nology the " go by," though he furnishes ample material 
for its extension. 

Champollion died in 1832, having done little more than 
"blaze out" the road to be travelled by others. Rosel- 
lini, in the same year, commenced the publication of his 
great work, on Egypt and Nubia, in which, for the first 
time, an effort was made to embfcce, in one grand com- 
pendium, all the Egyptian inscriptions in that day decy- 
phered. The practical result of his researches was, the 
monumental restoration of the lost history of Egypt, back 
to the eighteenth dynasty, computed by him at 1822, B. C, 
and by Wilkinson, at 1575. Though the date could not, 
even in 1835, be positively fixed, it was conceded that 
the truth must be within these limits, and all the dynasties 
previous to the eighteenth were still unaccounted for ! Ro- 
sellini faithfully published the materials in his possession, 
throwing back the pyramids into times previous to the six- 
teenth dynasty. 

The next great step was made in 1837, to 1839, by Col. 
Vyse and Perring, in their great work on the pyramids, 
and, about the same time, the removal of the Tablet of 
Abydos, to the British Museum, was effected. The result 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology, 37 

was the recognition of the important fact, that all the 
Memphitic pyramids antedated the eighteenth dynasty, 
and that a vast number of tombs, and other monuments, 
contemporary with the first twelve dynasties, still re- 
mained, to be explored and placed. 

Mr. Gliddon very justly remarks, that •* we are dealing 
in events inconceivably remote, with stratified masses of 
time, and not with supposititious calculations, of the exact 
day, week, month, or .year." 

Another great discovery was made, in 1840, by Lepsius ; 
but was not known to Mr. Gliddon till 1843, after the 
publication of his Ancient Egypt, quoted by our reviewer; 
viz., that the Tablet of Abydos, between cartouche number 
forty and number thirty-nine, omits the 13th, 1 4th, 15th, 
16th and 17th Manethenian dynasties, thus "jumping over 
the entire Hyksos period" and which marked a new era in 
the value of genealogical tablets. 

Though many important discoveries have been added 
since, the crowning labour of Lepsius was his triumph 
amidst the pyramids. We here have all the materials 
for placing the chronology of Egypt beyond even that of 
the Septuagint. Until the labours of Vyse and Perring, 
our knowledge about the pyramids was extremely vague. 
Their great work, embodying everything known on the 
subject, was published in 1839, in which they gave exact 
measurements and descriptions of thirty-nine. Even the 
number of pyramids at Memphis was not counted till 
1843, when Lepsius added thirty more, making sixty-nine 
in all. All these pyramids, too, without exception, belong 
to the ancient kingdom of Egypt, before the irruption of 
the Hyksos, who invaded Lower Egypt somewhere about 
2000, B. C; and the whole of these were erected, (those, 
at least, between Aboorooash and Dashoor,) by kings who 
reigned at Memphis. This is the opinion of Mr. Gliddon, 
whose opinions the reviewer has innocently misrepre- 
sented ; and this opinion is shared by Lepsius, Bunsen, 
Birch, Barruchi, Hinks,Lesseur, Leemans, Henry, Backh, 
Ampere, Vyse, Rouge, etc.* 

* It is a striking fact, that there is to be found no trace of the remarkable 
events of Jewish history on the Egyptian monuments, though we find such a 
vast amount of curious detail recorded in hieroglyphics, at various epochs, 
prior to the age of Solomon. This silence of the monuments has induced the 
belief in many, perhaps a majority of Egyptologists, that all the events, from 
Abraham to the Exode, occurred during the reign of the Hyksos, who were 



38 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

u These sixty-nine pyramids," says Gliddon, ** represent 
some seventy or eighty kingly generations, (two kings 
sometimes having been buried in the same pyramid,) the 
last of which died before Abraham was born ;" and from 
this fact, and the immense labour which we know they 
required, he shows conclusively, that these pyramids could 
not have been less than fifteen hundred *years in building. 
Even in the time of Herodotus, 5th century B. C, they 
were so ancient that their history was almost entirely 
lost, and we are told by him that the construction of the 
two largest consumed one hundred and six years. 

It will be instructive, also, to our reviewer, to be in- 
formed that Rosellini, (to whom he appeals for authority,) 
knew of but one hundred and seventy cartouches, or royal 
ovals, between Menes and Cambyses ; whereas Lepsius, in 
1842, gives about four hundred, recorded in hieroglyphics, 
and Barucchi increases the list to four hundred and fifty, in 
1846. In Rosellini's day, the dates of the pyramids were 
not even attempted, and their history had not commenced. 
Such has been the wonderful progress in chronology, in 
the last few years. Even Dr. Nolan, who pushes the 
epoch of Menes up to 2637 B. C, a date incompatible 
with the Septuagint chronology, passes over, in silence, 
many unplaced kings, and evidences drawn from the 
pyramids. 

If farther proof of Egyptian chronology were demand- 
ed, it will be found, clear and ample, in the history of 
mummification, — which is inseparable from that of the 
pyramids. We are informed by Lepsius, Birch, Gliddon, 
Bunsen, etc., that the art of mummification antedates all 
history, and has been traced, with certainty, to the third 
dynasty, which Lepsius places in the 35th century, B. C. 
The Bible affords evidence of the antiquity of this art, in 
the statement, that Jacob and Joseph were embalmed in 
Egypt, and carried back to Canaan ; and, if we are to 
believe the best authorities of the day, these bodies were 

foreigners ; and who, instead of erecting monuments, occupied much of their 
time in destroying those of the preceding twelve dynasties. The epoch of 
Abraham was certainly about 2000 years B. C, and it is no less true, that the 
Exode took place in the beginning of the eighteenth dynasty. The pyramids, 
through the labours of Lepsius, Vyse and Perring, are now thrown back into the 
twelve first dynasties ; and we think that all the corroborative facts which might 
be cited, in addition to the silence of the monuments about the Israelites, show 
that they were contemporary, in Egypt, with these Shepherd Kings of the 
middle age of Egypt. 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 39 

embalmed during the reign of the Shepherd Kings, or 
between the twelfth and eighteenth dynasties. 

We have before us an elaborate article, by Mr. Birch, 
of the British Museum, on the " Epochs of Mummies ;" and 
even Dr. Howe, if he would take the trouble to find out 
who and what Mr. Birch is, would not call in question 
one of his well-matured decisions. Mr. Birch traces 
mummies up to the third dynasty, though but few relics 
remain of these early reigns. When he comes down to 
the eleventh, and subsequent dynasties, he finds them in 
plenty, and details a great deal of curious information 
about them. We have no space for any thing more than 
a bare allusion. The great antiquity of mummies is a fixed 
fact.* 

We shall close this hasty sketch of the chronology, with 
a short table, made out from the " Chronologic der JEgyp- 
tce" of Baron Lepsius, which had not reached this country 
at the time our reviewer perpetrated his dismal doctrinal 
chronology. 

To Lepsius, have all the savans of Europe, with one 
accord, turned their eyes, as the master spirit of the day, 
in Egyptian discoveries ; and, certainly, no one has ever 
combined the necessary qualifications in a higher degree 
than himself. 

Epoch of Menes — commencement of historical period — 
Thirty dynasties. 

Old Empire. B. C. 

1st dyn. Accession of Menes, - - 3893 

Commencement of monumental period. 3d dyn. 

4th dyn. Pyramids and tombs extant, began, 3426 
12th dyn. " " " " ends, 2124 

* The pyramids are surrounded by numerous private contemporary tombs, 
which supply a vast amount of curious corroborative information. They are 
covered with paintings, sculptures, inscriptions, giving evidence of a highly 
advanced state of civilization, arts, sciences, etc. Lepsius, in 1843, opened 
one hundred and six of these tombs, representing manners and customs of 
Egyptians five thousand years ago. So full and accurate was the knowledge 
derived from these representations, that he promises to " write the Court 
Journal of the fourth Memphitic dynasty." 

The hieroglyphical designation, KeSH, applied exclusively to African races, 
as distinct from the Egyptians, has been found, by Lepsius, as far back as the 
monuments of the sixth dynasty, B. C. 3000. There can be no doubt that 
this term is applied to negroes, and is one of the evidences of the early dis- 
tinctness of races. 

3* 



40 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

Invasion of the Hyksos, comprising the 

15th and 16th dyn., from B. C. 2101 to 1590 

New Empire. Restoration. 

17th dyr s began, - - - - 1671 

30th dyn., ending on the 2d Persian invasion, 340* 

The monuments of the early dynasties have been so 
mutilated, and some six thousand years of time have 
thrown so many impediments in the way of the best-di- 
rected investigations, that it is probable we may never 
arrive at perfect accuracy ; but when such scholars as 
Lepsius, Bockh, Barucchi, Bunsen, Birch, Henry, Lesueur, 
Prisse, Ampere, Rouge, Hinks, Gliddon, etc., concur in the 
opinion that Egypt was not only populated, but possessed 
an organized government, and had erected national monu- 
ments, prior to any date which can be drawn from He- 
brew records, we cannot but regard the man who will 
still persevere in opposition, as • blinded, and beyond the 
reach of sense and argument. Is it not extraordinary, 
too, that our reviewer will appeal to "the numerous con- 
firmations of Scripture, which the manners and customs 
of Egypt, depicted on the monuments, afford," as far back 
as the eighteenth dynasty ; and yet, without a shadow of 
reason, repudiate the evidence drawn from the preceding 
monuments, which oppose the doctrines he claims to be 
"bound to defend." 

Let us now pause for a moment, and compare the chro- 
nology of Genesis with that of Egypt. The genealogical 
table already given, shows but ten generations between 
the deluge and Abraham ; which, according to the He- 
brew text, consume about 292 years, and, according to 
the Septuagint, 1070 years. The monumental history of 
Egypt gives at least twelve dynasties, (not generations^) 
antedating Abraham, which must consume incomparably 
more time ; and we might safely challenge the reviewer 
to find good authority, in the year 1850, to controvert this 
assertion. It is vain to attempt to get around this dilem- 
ma, by saying that Abraham, and his postdiluvian ances- 
tors, lived longer than we of the present day. We know 

* It should be remarked that, while Lepsius, from new data, is pushing 
back the era of Menes to 3893 B. C, he has actually lowered that of Israelitish 
history. He places Abraham about 1500 B. C, and the Exodus 1309 B. C. 
It is to be hoped that his great work will soon be translated, as it must, at 
least, put an end to all " short chronology." 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 41 

that their cotemporaries, in Egypt, lived no longer than 
generations of modern times ; and no one will contend 
for difference of longevity between Jews and Egyptians. 
Abraham and Sarah had never heard of their fathers and 
grand-fathers living to these extravagant ages ; for they 
were both astonished, and Sarah laughed, when told that 
she should bear a child, at the age of ninety ! 

Nor is it less vain to attempt to get round the difficulty, 
as is now becoming the fashion, by saying " that Genesis 
was not intended to teach chronology." We can, as Pro- 
fessor Stuart says, only judge what it intends to teach, by 
its language ; there can be no other rule of interpretation ; 
and the 5th, 10th and 11th chapters of this bo6k do give 
us, in plain language, genealogies and chronology, without 
qualification. It teaches genealogies and chronology, as 
clearly as language can speak, which are manifestly 
wrong; and which, though Christ passed over in silence, 
(as he did much else in the Old Testament that might 
have been corrected) he did not vouch for or affirm. It 
did not belong to his mission to teach other than those 
truths which were absolutely essential to the faith which 
he brought. He, at least, did not peril the vital in the 
vain assertion of the unimportant. 

But we have already overleaped our prescribed bounds, 
and must draw to a close ; though more than half the re- 
viewer's errors are left uncorrected. The essential points, 
however, have been seized, and enough, we trust, has been 
said to serve as a caution to him and his collaborateurs, 
against the expression of hasty and erroneous opinions, 
on subjects of such gravity, and to which they have 
shown themselves so unequal. Let us, for a moment, 
look back and ask what are the true questions at issue ? 
They are simply these : 

1st. Are all the races ol men, of Europe, Asia, Africa, 
America, Australia, &c, whose diverse types antedate all 
history, descended from Noah's family ? 

2d. Does the Bible, in a historical sense, teach such 
community of origin, or does it, except incidentally, speak 
of any other than the Hebrew race ? 

We have given a decided negative to these questions, 
for the following general reasons : 

1st. Because the account given in Genesis itself, of the 
wide dispersion of mankind, soon after the flood, and of 
different nations, different tongues, large cities, &c, in the 



42 Ancient and Scripture Chronology, 

3d and 4th generations from Noah, is utterly irreconcila- 
ble with the idea of a common origin. 

2d. Because the earliest biblical date for the deluge, 
which can possibly be contended for, is the year 3,246 B. 
C. ; and it has been clearly demonstrated, by the most 
competent Egyptologists of the present day, that Egypt, 
long previous to this date, was a populous and highly 
civilized nation, with monuments standing, and on many 
of which were recorded evidences of distinct races. 

3d. Because it is proven, from authentic records, (ad- 
mitted, too, by the reviewer's quotations from Medhurst) 
that the Chinese chronology extends beyond all Jewish 
annals ; and because there are good and sufficient reasons 
for believing that India, America, and other countries, had 
peculiar races, contemporary with those of China and 
Egypt. 

4th. Because the types of men now seen on the earth, 
may be traced to the remotest times of which we have 
any knowledge ; and because we have no authenticated 
example of the transformation of one type into another. 
The Jews, in every climate of the four quarters of the 
globe, have preserved substantially the same type which 
they carried with them to Egypt 3,500 years ago. 

5th. Because it is conceded that the writers of the Old 
and New Testaments no where give evidence of more ex- 
tensive geographical and ethnographical knowledge than 
their profane contemporaries ; which knowledge was limit- 
ed to a small fraction of the earth bordering on the Medi- 
terranean. 

6th. And lastly, because the most learned theologians, 
of all nations, are far from being agreed as to the degree 
of authenticity and historical accuracy, of the various 
books of the Old and New Testaments ; thus leaving the 
field open to fair investigation. 

Not only is it our misfortune to differ widely from the 
reviewer on the foregoing points, but also as to the im- 
portance of the subject before us. " Our amazement," 
says he, " is not diminished, when we consider the trifling 
cause for this outcry against scripture (doctrine ?) Dr. 
Nott imagines the Ethiopians to be a different race from 
ourselves." 

No man capable of philosophical reflection, can regard 
the diversity of races as a " trifling" fact. If it really be 
a truth, as we believe, (and in this opinion we are sus- 



Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 43 

tained by Agassiz, Morton, Pickering,* and other leading 
authorities) that there are several races, of distinct ori- 
gins ; if, too, these races differ in physical organization, in 
intellectual and moral perfectibility ; and are severally 
formed to flourish best in certain climates, and in certain 
positions in the social scale ; what mind can grasp its 
endless bearings, or what true philanthropist could wish 
to strangle its investigation ? The 3,000,000 of blacks in 
the United States, the condition of the West Indies*, the 
Indian population of America, &c, &c, certainly afford 
something more than " trifling cause" — not to speak of 
other causes — for this " outcry" against doctrine, which, 
we contend, the true Scripture was never intended to 
assert. 

When the reviewer presumes to " denounce" the " views" 
of others, " as dangerous to religion, morality and law," 
he arrogates for himself and his doctrines a supremacy 
which will not be conceded in a free and enlightened 
country. We trust that we have never been wanting in 
proper respect for the clergy of all denominations, or 
backward in extending them kindnesses when occasion 
offered ; and it shall be our pride and pleasure to continue 

* Dr. Bachman has afforded us considerable occasion for argument, when 
he undertakes to treat on this subject of the races ; so extraordinary has been 
his misunderstanding of the plain language of Agassiz, Morton and Pickering. 
He quotes, in his book, a paragraph from Agassiz, to prove that he was in 
favour of unity, which we construed in the opposite sense. M. Agassiz has put 
him right in the matter since. The Dr. seems equally determined not to un- 
derstand Dr. Morton ; but we will take the liberty of informing him, that Dr. 
Morton fully concurs with us on this point. And, as for Pickering, we shall 
quote a paragraph from page 305, of his " Races of Man." 

After speaking of Animals and Plants, he says : 

" Not so, however, with the human family. Notwithstanding the mixtures 
of race, during two centuries, in the United States, no one has remarked a 
tendency to the development of a new race. In Arabia, where the mixtures 
are more complicated, and have been going on from time immemorial, the re- 
sult does not appear to have been different. On the Egyptian monuments I 
was unable to detect a change in the races of the human family. Neither does 
written history afford evidence of the extinction of one physical race of men, 
or the development of another previously unknown." 

Dr. Bachman tells us, that he has " recently read very few of the numerous 
works written on the subject" — has not even read the last edition of Prichard. 
We think he had better quit reading entirely, until he can learn to understand 
plain English, and writing, until he learns common courtesy. We must, how- 
ever, in justice to the Dr., give him full credit for his boldness, in attempting 
to work a subject so vast out of his own brain, without assistance from others. 

" And still they gazed, and still the wonder grew, 
How one small head could carry all he knew." 



44 Ancient and Scripture Chronology. 

those friendly relations which have always existed between 
us. We shall not,- however, so far forget our self-respect, 
as to submit tamely to aggression and insults, like those 
that we have taken in hand to resent, from any respecta- 
ble source. 

Dr. Prichard may be taken as a fair type of this school 
of theological naturalists. He was for forty years writing 
on this subject, and, with every edition was changing his 
ground, as science advanced upon him, — until, in his last, 
he gives up the chronology of Genesis, the ages of the 
patriarchs, and, in fact, its authenticity. We shall close 
with a quotation from Mr. Burke, editor of the Ethnologi- 
cal Journal — pp. 281. 

" We look upon Dr. Prichard as the victim of a false theory ; 
perhaps no one has been more injured by a theory than he has been 
by his. With learning enough, and talent enough, and patience 
and candour enough, to confer benefits of the highest order upon 
science, his great work leaves ethnology just where it found it. We 
are not aware that it has developed a single great fact or principle. 
In its purely ethnological department, nothing is concluded, nothing 
is proved, all is vagueness and generalization, from the beginning to 
the end. How, indeed, could it be otherwise ? Vagueness can 
beget nothing but vagueness ; or what could be expected from a 
theory originally based, not upon a scientific demonstration, but upon 
a theological assumption. Science is difficult enough to the free ; 
how can any great results be expected from those who, notwithstand- 
ing their earnest love of truth, are still compelled, from their educa- 
tion or position, to approach to certain subjects with unsandalled feet, 
and reverential awe, and humbled intellects ? Nature unveils her- 
self to the brave alone — to those who look upon her with an ardent 
and fearless gaze, convinced that she has nothing to reveal that is 
not noble, and beautiful, and good." 

J. C. N. 
Mobile, Ala. 



CHRONOLOGY, 



ANCIENT AND SCRIPTURAL; 



BEING A REPLY TO AN 

ARTICLE CONTAINED IN THE SOUTHERN PRESBYTERIAN 

REVIEW, REVIEWING NOTT'S LECTURES ON THE 

CONNECTION BETWEEN THE BIBLICAL AND 

PHYSICAL HISTORY OF MAN. 



FROM THE SOUTHERN QUARTERLY REVIEW FOR NOVEMBER 1850.] 



By J. C. NOTT, M. D., 

Of Mobile, Ala, 



EARLESTON, S. C. 

STEAM-POWER PRESS OF WALKER AND J A \ 
1850. 



.9 2> 

;;> > > 

> > >> 
> > > > ^> 

■yj> j>:> > > 
-> > 3> 

O > > > 3> 
> >^> -> ^> 



£3? 



2> 2> 






i 

> ..> DP 

>» 



> 



> r J o 






> J>J> 






3,^ 



r? 









as? a 



5>3> 






5 >^ 






.) ^ » r> - 



>> 3^^ 



> }> >^ 









Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Pa 
Cranberry Township. P<i 
(724) 779-21 1 1 



; > > > 






J> > > > > 



> ^ 






35 >>'>pp ^ e 



> > 

> > 

> >>> 



^ 









» 5 



»7> 



v* 



) ) >,) > ' p 



>^ 3»>3 3VS 






?? > > 



.-> >>o> 



> > 

> > 

>> > > 



)>j> Ji> ) )> > 



3> ->> -y> > 



3 > >> » ) 
> >>> » 



» >>> 
3 > > 
> >} ■>>> 

>> > ) > > 



nxw.y. 



HUHH 

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 




